Jump to content


Photo

I Need "all" Of Your Help About Mt. Everst Fossils......

Mt. Everst Fossils

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
30 replies to this topic

#1 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:40 AM

Dear friends I am posting this as open.
If your a YEC, I am one also but I don't buy into all YEC teaching. I would like to throw out some ideas about this and issues and have this great lot of minds respond to this, because in my huble opinion Everest is a conendrum for YEC's and for others. I would like to get your views no matter what they are or what creation or evoutionary or geologic view you may come from..... Here is my statement:

1. We all mostly agree that the fossil record on Everest shows the fossils "in" the strata and not "on" the strata, the records themselves include clams, trilobite type stuff, and fishes, so it varies, but many of these fossils are indeed deep water fossils in their own right as interpeted by YECS and Evolutionists.

2. We would mostly agree that this same scenerio is observable in other mountian ranges through out the world, but not all ranges interstingly (wonder why not)?

3. It is infered by Creationists and Evoutionists as well as other geologists that some techtonic activity at some time was responsibe for Everests growth and exisitence, coming up out of the ocean to exposure as land to eventually a mountian, to a huge mountian, including the whole range as it slammed (?) into India?

4. YEC's of many views often say this mountians came into exsistence during the flood year? Now they (YEC's) also say there were hills and even small mountians prior to the flood--but they were not fully formed prior to the flood?

My idea counter to some of these views:
Defining how I read the scenerio:

In the beginning the bible says the earth was void (without purpose) and covered in water. What was under the water? Could it have been a soupy sediment, or was it hard earth with strata that exsisted as part of the original foundational makeup of the earth? Yecs insit that strata is the reult of the flood, Isay ot could have been create doriginally as part of the soon to be biosphere as it took on purpose via GODs creative acts?

The Spirit hovered over the waters and God following this narrative was about to create the biosphere. Wether your a creationists or not--somehow the biosphere came into exsitance, I beleive this was done by God, some of you may beleive in an unguided explantion. Thats fine.

So the next big scenerio is GOD spoke the land up and the water (s) (note plural) parted and the land if I get the biblical scenrio became land and showed up, now at this time the biosphere was being prepared to recieve the flora and fauna that GOD would palce through out the earth. Now if your a YEC or some evoutionists (Gould) both have observed a sudden appearance of animal and plant diversity (with respect to the fossil record).

So now given this narative, I ask you all to commnet on the possilbity that Mt. Everest, could have been formed prior to the flood and probably was. It may not have been as large as it is now, but may have been one of the prominient mountian ranges that God created in the beginning? So literally I ask most humbly; "couldn't God have spoken up this mountain range and others, per the narative of Genesis, prior to the exsistance of the flood and creation of mankind and the naimal diveristy?"

If your a YEC this flies in your face but what is the possibility that the continients that now exisit were originally under the waters that I mentioned in the Genesis narrative, and when God spoke up land, what came up out of the water was indeed continients--literally thse that exsist today, or psudo continients? I know that the diversity of GODs creation was so astounding and complex, that each animal specie required a certian eco-niche in order to live, So given that narrative it seems plausible to me that the placing of the diversity required deserts, woodlands, mountians, caves, valleys, rivers, you name it. It seems unpausible to me that some of the YEC inferences about the pre-flood earth could be correct??? I say that in all humility, but there are strict ideas coming from the YEC community that I beleive are not going to stand the test of time because the hermenutics are incorrect (like the flat earthers in some cases) All though I must say I do buy into much of of the YEC views, but I am at odds with some of it.

So the fossils on Everest are "in" the rock and sediment layers. Many are deep water fossils? Some ae not? Here is the rub, after talking and reading several commnets by noted geologists, it is my under standing (please correct me if I am wrong) that even if Mt. Everst were half its size and grew to almost its full size during the flood, the heat from this scenerio would be so intense and high that the ocean would boil and kill off all life? So we have Everest, we all see it, we all have differnet views.

So I ask my YEC firends who have not been willing to even entertian other views about this, to consider there "could" be another biblical narative that might answer the condendrum of Everest? That insistence on certian views of the pre-flood earth may be incorrect? I know it is because there is a huge body of evidence that is being ignored by Creationists that are YECs such as myself. I see know need of lang perios of time for creation. THats me eprsonally biut I also belive there is huge body of evidence with resect to volcanoes, hits for comets and space debris, cyclical storms, fires and other such htings that all took place prior to the flood, and yes that would include rain. The good earth idea is good, but what is good? Fire is horrible to nature, but it is also necessary to replace it and hlep certan evirionments to be healthy? God knows that in His wisdom doe she not? Why are we as YECs putting God on a box wehn ot comes to "His" creation???

So most of this flies in the face of all of us, but I am looking for answers and I don't think what I have read by evoiutionists answers anything per se for me, but I also beleive that my YEC borthers are missing the point in trying to hold on to previously published ideas and accounts of Genesis (hermenutics) that might have another possible explantion just as biblical????? Your thought everyone!!!!!! I hopefully can get some input from geologists, creatioists old earth, young earth, evolutionists?

Do me a favor and before you post just mention if your YEC, OE, Evolutionists or commenting as Geologist just so you define hwo you are and your persective your coming from????

#2 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:28 PM

Do me a favor and before you post just mention if your YEC, OE, Evolutionists or commenting as Geologist just so you define hwo you are and your persective your coming from????


Hi, I'm old earth, but young biological life (6500 years ago) so for the purposes of this particular discussion I could appear YEC.

I believe when Adam was created, the land surface was very small (Garden of Eden was an island, the first landmass). The earth's ocean was mainly anoxic, not having enough oxygen to support most modern oceanic life-forms (like fish). So when God filled the earth with biological life 6500 years ago, detectable mammal fossils are virtually non-existent, only existing on one island after long mammal life-spans. Also considering the amazing life-spans, there would have been many many generations of dying bacteria, dying trilobites etc before even the first mammal on the island of Eden even died. Fish were possibly only in existence in a few small lakes on that first island. The rest of the earth was actually ocean, dominated by trilobites, being better suited to anoxic conditions. This is why the lowest layers, even in the mountain ranges, show trilobites.

I believe the mountain ranges were mainly formed during and after the flood. Scientists confirm that the landscape was flatter during the early years of biological life. Scientists always vastly overestimate the heat situation. I believe the tectonic activity during the flood did cause world temperatures to spike. Luckily Noah was on the boat during this.
They say rapid tectonic movement is impossible because of heat, yet the Japanese tsunami involved 50m movements without any discernible heat problem, so I really believe the friction involved in mountain building, although intense, was not earth-destroying.

#3 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 12 September 2012 - 06:40 AM

Wow! Thanks for the answer, I am not putting this out to commnet on anyones view, because my view is somewhat out of the norm as well. I just am looking at what you all think about the fossil record on Everest and how this may be interpreted. I appreciate your post!

Without is going off on a tangent--when did Eden become more than an island in relation to the bio-mass diversities inclusion in your view? Just curious.

#4 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 12 September 2012 - 10:38 AM

Wow! Thanks for the answer, I am not putting this out to commnet on anyones view, because my view is somewhat out of the norm as well. I just am looking at what you all think about the fossil record on Everest and how this may be interpreted. I appreciate your post!

Without is going off on a tangent--when did Eden become more than an island in relation to the bio-mass diversities inclusion in your view? Just curious.


I believe it kept growing for the 1750 years before the flood. The world was wetter before the flood. Barks of trees were different , you would probably find that they absorbed water through their bark because of the mists. Swamps were extensive and amphibians and swamp plants were most numerous. Mammals and reptiles were always rare, amphibians were dominant. The continents were cold , full of ice and glaciers, and the ice-caps were large. Closer to the flood, the oceans were more suitable for fish, but still there were large anoxic areas in the oceans, and so trilobites proliferated as well. But the main sign of huge swamps before the flood is the huge "carboniferous coal" deposits throughout earth, showing the pre-flood swampy environments. Below these you will often find trilobites.

After the flood the world was silted up, and hot and dry. That is why reptiles immediately flourished and amphibians immediately died off at the flood. Reptiles were so physically dominant that it took another ice-age for them to die off (towards the end of the great early civilizations) leaving mammals as the most numerous survivors of recent times.

#5 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:05 AM

New path, I have some questions but I have another that I always ask fellow creatioinists. What is your explnation of the insect diversity at the time of the flood? Some YECS (strict biblicalists) say not nephhish not air breathing so they weren't on the ARK?

Other say yes they were on the ARK? What's your take on the 11,000,000 speices that are currently found in the Amazonian Rain Forest? Many of these as I previoulsy posted require a certian habitat and eco-nich and some require a symbiotic realtionhisp with certian plants and animals? I am curious as to how you see the insect population within the confines of your view?

#6 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 14 September 2012 - 06:44 AM

New path, I have some questions but I have another that I always ask fellow creatioinists. What is your explnation of the insect diversity at the time of the flood? Some YECS (strict biblicalists) say not nephhish not air breathing so they weren't on the ARK?

Other say yes they were on the ARK? What's your take on the 11,000,000 speices that are currently found in the Amazonian Rain Forest? Many of these as I previoulsy posted require a certian habitat and eco-nich and some require a symbiotic realtionhisp with certian plants and animals? I am curious as to how you see the insect population within the confines of your view?


I actually don't know so I'm in the fortunate position that I can adjust my view according to the evidence. I suspect that insects were left to survive on their own, on floating trees and weren't on the ark, but I could be wrong.

#7 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:16 AM

Listen realistically I can't imply as I believe some of my very, very good brothers really do have "it" creation down. So I do not at all support the floating log mats theory for several reasons I could enumerate on, but I will give this too you, insects would most likely be able to survive on such debris, but when you take in to account pre-flood diversity and its distribution based on the fossil record, how did huge portions of the existing diversity that we observe today get "back" to there original areas of distribution per GODs selective and most intrinsic and mighty wisdom of matching the fauna/flora with the eco-system HE originally created? It is these and many other questions I have that have put me in the position of being called a "scoffer" by Biblical literalists that can not allow for various possible views that may have a different narrative than theres but be Biblical in its approach. So as I think I mentioned before, I do lean towards a Local Flood how ever huge flood, and not a wwFLood. Which flies in the face of some or even many.

I ask this question about Everest, because I think Psalms 104 is not a flood scenario but a creation narrative. I also am perplexed about the fossil record on Everest and other mountains and also the lack of no fossil record on many? Ergo my reason for asking the question. With respect to floating mats as an example---we have the Texas HOrned Lizard that has a fossil record that record is located in Texas and New Mexico, So this is a picture for me of the possible distribution of the THL prior to the flood, So these lizards are specialists and need ants for food, certain ants not just any ants, just like the Panda, or other animal species like frogs that procreate by laying their eggs in the waters of certain cupped plants in the Amazon. These specific special designs imply for me that unique pre-flood creations do to Gods handi-work, in no way have a current explanation that is reasonable or even fits with the evidences of post flood diversities actual distribution. So while I lean towards a young Earth, and think we need not have a God that took millions of years to create, I also am at a loss as either on either side are as to the "full" and sensible explanation. I do not support some of the views because they in my humble opinion are not possibly true even if they were written by experts. If it were true and fully explainable we'd have scientists and the full range of Christian thinking supporting these views......There are implications to some of the published information, and I don't believe in the long rin some of the accepted wwflood inferences will stand up to scrutiny and in fact especially where the fossil beds are currently used as examples by Henry Morris and others, the actual "evidence" flies again in the face of their published accounts. Unfortunately when you mention this stuff and try and point out the inconsistancies of this view, you get a rash of creationists that go after your biblical view and are really not interested in truth but supporting a good old boys club, of which I am none of that.

#8 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 September 2012 - 06:32 AM

Listen realistically I can't imply as I believe some of my very, very good brothers really do have "it" creation down. So I do not at all support the floating log mats theory for several reasons I could enumerate on, but I will give this too you, insects would most likely be able to survive on such debris, but when you take in to account pre-flood diversity and its distribution based on the fossil record, how did huge portions of the existing diversity that we observe today get "back" to there original areas of distribution per GODs selective and most intrinsic and mighty wisdom of matching the fauna/flora with the eco-system HE originally created? It is these and many other questions I have that have put me in the position of being called a "scoffer" by Biblical literalists that can not allow for various possible views that may have a different narrative than theres but be Biblical in its approach. So as I think I mentioned before, I do lean towards a Local Flood how ever huge flood, and not a wwFLood. Which flies in the face of some or even many.

I ask this question about Everest, because I think Psalms 104 is not a flood scenario but a creation narrative. I also am perplexed about the fossil record on Everest and other mountains and also the lack of no fossil record on many? Ergo my reason for asking the question. With respect to floating mats as an example---we have the Texas HOrned Lizard that has a fossil record that record is located in Texas and New Mexico, So this is a picture for me of the possible distribution of the THL prior to the flood, So these lizards are specialists and need ants for food, certain ants not just any ants, just like the Panda, or other animal species like frogs that procreate by laying their eggs in the waters of certain cupped plants in the Amazon. These specific special designs imply for me that unique pre-flood creations do to Gods handi-work, in no way have a current explanation that is reasonable or even fits with the evidences of post flood diversities actual distribution. So while I lean towards a young Earth, and think we need not have a God that took millions of years to create, I also am at a loss as either on either side are as to the "full" and sensible explanation. I do not support some of the views because they in my humble opinion are not possibly true even if they were written by experts. If it were true and fully explainable we'd have scientists and the full range of Christian thinking supporting these views......There are implications to some of the published information, and I don't believe in the long rin some of the accepted wwflood inferences will stand up to scrutiny and in fact especially where the fossil beds are currently used as examples by Henry Morris and others, the actual "evidence" flies again in the face of their published accounts. Unfortunately when you mention this stuff and try and point out the inconsistancies of this view, you get a rash of creationists that go after your biblical view and are really not interested in truth but supporting a good old boys club, of which I am none of that.


There is simply not enough detail about the terrain of the earth before the flood to comment on the height of the mountain/hills. But we know two things: God's Word about the creation and the flood is all true and neo-Darwinian interpretations of geology is (by examination) in error.

#9 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 15 September 2012 - 08:49 AM

We know God's Word is true, how man uses hermeneutics to interpret what was written is sometimes an issue (ie the falt earther's) I believe there are creationists buying into various Theories by creationists that are not going to stand the test of time, and have huge holes in it. That is not about evolution, but it is about scientific fact. I agree I aborr anything evolutionary as well. But your comment about the pre-flood condition of the earth is maybe influenced by some of the creationist stuff that has been published due to some teaching and mentality. I tell you flat our there is a huge amount of evidence and implication as to what the earth was like pre-flood. Lots!! YOu may not buy into the information because you may be following some teachings by creationists that constantly try and make that point, this is in error...!

Here are a few things for you to explore on your own:
Toba Volcano, Ash covered fossils in the midwest, Chinas ash covered forest in pristine condition fossilized, Mt. Vesuvius prior in ancient times before Pompeii, Karoo fossil beds and what they actually say to us, the Canadian dinosaur fossil area and what existed and what may have caused this, THe SOuth American fossil discoveries, the implication of land under the water in Genesis, what kind of land? The fossil record itself is a picture of the pre-flood diversity created and set in place by God, you cannot change the truth of the fossil record and its implication to creationism, I am not referring to long time spans I am talking about diversity and creation and distribution. So while none of us have it all down there are snippets that we all carry that are true and factual, I unfortunately don't support some of the published accounts by some creationists who leave out important pieces of the puzzle in order to support a certain "biblical view" which I believe the bible is a historical and reliable document, but men take it and use it but refuse to see that GODs foot prints in the sand are evidences of his creative design and acts in history as well. THe two melt together but unfortunately some creationists are closed to any discussion out side of a form of legalism which only allows for one view. I more interested in the truth. And the pre-flood evidences are many and one cannot deny these truths......
  • NewPath likes this

#10 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 September 2012 - 10:17 AM

Listen realistically I can't imply as I believe some of my very, very good brothers really do have "it" creation down.


I absolutely agree. For us here on the forum, origins will probably be the first thing Jesus sets us straight about when we get up there. I am sure we all have something wrong concerning origins.

So as I think I mentioned before, I do lean towards a Local Flood how ever huge flood, and not a wwFLood. Which flies in the face of some or even many.



In light of this, I am curious as to your opinion on this topic: http://evolutionfair...t=0

Realistically, since it would take a miracle to bring so many animals onto the ark, it would probably take a miracle to redistribute the animals back to safe locations throughout the earth. I believe that since God was in charge of the catastrophe, He made sure that small portions of organisms (that didn't fit on the ark) were in the right place at the right time so as not to be completely wiped out by all the action going on. This is what I derive from the Bible. Now good luck finding natural evidence for it, since you basically have to look into the mind and revelation of God to arrive at this conclusion.

I am not sure what I believe about the height of everest before the flood, whether it was created during the flood all together or just made taller. Seems likely to me that it was made taller. I think we are missing most of the puzzle to determine what the earth looked like pre-flood, and to determine how the flood affected it. There certainly are some interesting theories out there.

#11 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 15 September 2012 - 12:34 PM

One hypothisis is that there were not multiple continents in the pre-flood time but possibly, we weren't there, it was one continent, hope this helps.

#12 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 September 2012 - 09:28 AM

Dear Jay--
There has been an in house discussion about a localized and wwflood for some time. I have already stated that I "lean" towards a local flood, now that is not predicated on gradualism, evolution, or any such thing. Creationists are excellent in using hermeneutics and I myself to interpret the historicity of creation and the issues that took place with the flood. "My" problem with some of that, is that hermeneutics can have holes in it.
(Me too)

Your question above is one I have run into over and over and cannot discount. While I say I lean towards a local flood, I am totally open to a wwFlood. However, even on this forum, the guys/gals have been very gracious in discussing some different views that I have, I appreciate that, but I am fine with the fact you take a different view, this should never separate us a Christian brothers, especially given an in-house discussion.. I just think that as I said above, Creationist Christians do not, I repeat; do not have all the answers? That includes me.

Unfortunately some of our brothers and sisters are teaching theoretical ideas as if they are fact, with no biblical support except their own interpretation or lack of biblical basis, and criticize others for the same thing????. If I challenge you Jay that Psalms 104 is indeed a creation scripture and not flood? We will have a conflict right away. But and if most humbly put that argument aside. Here is what drives me towards a local flood.

1. God said be fruitful and multiply to the animal kingdom after he set them in place, he said each will be of its kind through time. I not only embrace this, I believe this is the truth biblically, in nature, and DNA supports this, I predicate that on the facts of the fossil record, observed procreation in animals species. If you have studied DNA you know the procreative genes do not change unless new information is introduced. In this case the only real explanation for such changes are indeed hybridization, which rarely happens in nature but also happens through mans tampering and domestication through out our history (ie Dogs, Cows, Birds, etc.).

2. When the animals came off the Ark the bible does not imply that GOD set the animals back to their eco-zones. There is no discussion about the insect kingdom hardly at all by creationists that has any viable explanation, there is no dispersion mechanism except the one that is being promoted by creationists in the YE view called adaptive variation which I do not buy into, it is unsustainable in its tenets, and there is no mention of this in the bible, and Gods expectation off the Ark is the same argument IMHO that took place after he set the fauna and flora in place at original creation. Each was to be fruitful and multiply with its same. This was the biblical explanation and expectation. Now I totally cannot buy into the floating mats theory, respectfully I understand many do---I have no doubt if there was a wwFlood then there would have been debris floating, but if you go to my symbiotic relationship post (which most creationists do not even consider) it should be plain that animals coming off the Ark would have been a very difficult thing indeed. Even with floating mats did they have GPS in order to get the animals back to their distribution points through out the world? How did the get off the matt, how did they get on the mats, how is it possible that two of each kind going to Africa male and female found their way on to the mat at the same time? What of specialty eaters who need certain food sources? HOW did the mats stay together given the nature of ocean currents, rain after the flood, and weather? Could some animals multiply and exists on mats for 20 or 30 years?

3. Because of this and many other flood geology issues that is inspired by creationist publishing's but left out certain details, I believe that "some" but not all of the flood geology is something I cannot buy into, ergo my question about Everest and other mountains and many ranges that have no fossils at all? I find it interesting that creationist condemn uniformitarian layered ideas yet they accept and employ layering in there discussions all the time, and sadly these supposed layers are not uniform through out the would, nor is the fossil record pretty and all layered according to animal species as employed by some gradualists. I also think that Creationists are sadly lacking in accepting the truths and evidence all over the place about the conditions of the earth pre-flood? There is huge contingent of evidences, yet this is never mentions, never discussed, etc. Now I interpret this “legalism” which often comes into play as some creationists deny that rain could have existed prior to the flood. Many other "biblical hermeneutics" of which I not only reject, I have been called a “scoffer” by some legalistic YECS whose values with respect to following Jesus have missed the point of their relationship with fellow Christians.

I tell you that some of the creationist agenda I cannot accept, not because I don’t believe the bible, but when I have an argument that insists that I am no longer a Christian because my view has evidence that challenges their position, then something is wrong with this. Jay I am not about supporting the "good old boys club" I want to know the truth, and there are apparent truths that can be extrapolated from Gods work in the world, and the intelligent design, employment of animal distributions, the fossil record, and DNA all are in my humble opinion a challenge to all of us as Creationists.

Either we follow old books and publishing's that may no longer be relevant but are upheld as truth, that have an agenda especially some YEC agendas or we look at what's out there and what truths we can rubber stamp, evidence fact, truth! Is there anything wrong with saying I don’t know, or I am studying that???? I am most strongly a YEC and don‘t believe the need for long periods of time, but I also don’t imply I have all the answers either. I am ignorant and searching..... It is my most humble opinion that truth of GOD will employ with the Truth of HIS Word. I think the issue becomes the hermeneutics and mans interpretation of the scriptures.

So Jay humbly if you can give me a better explanation about the animal distribution, the Ark species ( I fully believe the bible and the Ark don’t get me wrong), and supposed rapid adaptive variation after the dispersion (sounds like micro-evolution which I reject), then I will fully consider the wwFlood. IF you can include the insects survival, and other such things, then I will consider the wwFlood. But while I don’t have a firm position it is my feeling a local flood indeed took place, and earth (eretz) and mankind were localized in early creation, and these areas were flooded but not all diversity, I also would challenge all of us to think about the Pangaea idea and the separation of land masses at Peleg. Do you know what kind of destruction this would have created to split continents thousands of miles apart at that time (Post flood)? It is my humble opinion this took place before the flood or during the flood, but also the possibility that the continents were created in the beginning pseudo “as is” 6,500 years ago???? I say this because the bio-sphere that GOD created and put all life into, the life itself required certain eco-niches in order to survive, I contend that God would have and did create such by creating a perfect “bed” to put the sheets on? There are mountain dwellers, ocean dwellers, deserts, wood lands, etc. etc. We know diversity is decreasing and not increasing? That pre-flood distribution was much more huge than it is now. There are just too many serious questions without answers, so I am not dogmatic, but there are things we all can rubber stamp....
Jay how can we dogmatically state that given the unanswered, that the little we do know is enough to say this is the answer, I am not talking about relativism, but facts Jay. I want to know the truth. That’s all.


#13 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 September 2012 - 03:38 PM

Unfortunately some of our brothers and sisters are teaching theoretical ideas as if they are fact, with no biblical support except their own interpretation or lack of biblical basis, and criticize others for the same thing????. If I challenge you Jay that Psalms 104 is indeed a creation scripture and not flood? We will have a conflict right away.



When I read that it doesn't seem to matter if it is a creation scripture or flood, since the verse in question talks about water going over the mountains, which can also be found in Genesis 7 specifically about the flood, so for all I know, it could be a creation passage and it wouldn't change anything for me.


But and if most humbly put that argument aside. Here is what drives me towards a local flood.

1. God said be fruitful and multiply to the animal kingdom after he set them in place, he said each will be of its kind through time. I not only embrace this, I believe this is the truth biblically, in nature, and DNA supports this, I predicate that on the facts of the fossil record, observed procreation in animals species. If you have studied DNA you know the procreative genes do not change unless new information is introduced. In this case the only real explanation for such changes are indeed hybridization, which rarely happens in nature but also happens through mans tampering and domestication through out our history (ie Dogs, Cows, Birds, etc.).



I really don't know much about this hybridization theory. Are you saying God made different kinds of fish or birds, and they interbred to make new species?

2. When the animals came off the Ark the bible does not imply that GOD set the animals back to their eco-zones.



I don't remember the Bible implying that God led the animals to the ark either, but I logically deduce this.

There is no discussion about the insect kingdom hardly at all by creationists that has any viable explanation,



Somehow I believe that this may be too specific to address, the fine details of the flood and the issues surrounding it will probably be obscured by the fog of the past until we meet Jesus. There may have been some on the ark, on animals, on mats, some protected in ways that we could not guess. I don't see this really being settled.

there is no dispersion mechanism except the one that is being promoted by creationists in the YE view called adaptive variation which I do not buy into, it is unsustainable in its tenets,



How do you mean? Perhaps you have researched this more than me, and like I said, I don't know much about hybridization. I predicate this based on Adam and Eve conceiving the entire population of the world. They would have enough of a variety in their DNA and mutations would add to that variety. This would cause the sickle cell, different skin tones, different bone structures, etc over time. Certainly no amount of mutations would have moved them past human form. Also, we see new species arise as a result of isolation in a unique habitat, such as ring species. They are the same animal as their ancestors, but look different in color, size, etc

and there is no mention of this in the bible, and Gods expectation off the Ark is the same argument IMHO that took place after he set the fauna and flora in place at original creation.



God does not mention all things in the Bible, but we can use logic to determine what is Biblically plausible. This takes careful consideration of what the Bible states explicitly and implicitly, so as not to violate any scriptural passages. I don't mind that you disagree with me but to point out that my argument is unbiblical ignores the logic that I use to arrive at such conclusions. I point out that kind is not necessarily synonymous to species. Organisms were told to procreate after their kind in Genesis, but if kind means finch it would include a wide variety of finches. Therefore, there would be a finch kind that can change and adapt to new, slightly different environments.

Each was to be fruitful and multiply with its same. This was the biblical explanation and expectation. Now I totally cannot buy into the floating mats theory, respectfully I understand many do---I have no doubt if there was a wwFlood then there would have been debris floating, but if you go to my symbiotic relationship post (which most creationists do not even consider) it should be plain that animals coming off the Ark would have been a very difficult thing indeed.



Yet no problem if God directed the process in an orderly fashion.

Even with floating mats did they have GPS in order to get the animals back to their distribution points through out the world?



No.

How did the get off the matt


They walked, flew, washed up on land etc.

how did they get on the mats


the same way

how is it possible that two of each kind going to Africa male and female found their way on to the mat at the same time?


not necessary, but if they did not, then God would have to direct them to the same location. otherwise, where one insect is, there is usually more than one in my experience.

What of specialty eaters who need certain food sources?



Very specifically depends on what species you are talking about to discuss. Like I said before, it might have taken some divine forbearance.

HOW did the mats stay together given the nature of ocean currents, rain after the flood, and weather?



Velcro? Some natural kind of intertwining, adhesive, or hooks etc? I see seaweed floating in large mats all the time when I go to the beach. Driftwood? Also, if you think about the ocean, it undulates, and rain just falls down in one direction. Although there is a lot of action going on, there isn't a lot of force to break mats apart if they were floating if you're in the right spot. Like I said, there might have been some forbearance for certain organisms to survive with regard to weather.

Could some animals multiply and exists on mats for 20 or 30 years?



I never once considered that this would be necessary to any theory or model. Have you? I don't see animals existing on these mats, usually just seeds, insects maybe fungus. Never heard of animals on mats.

In order to be specific, we need more details, until then we can only speculate with what we have.

To Be Continued...

#14 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 16 September 2012 - 06:12 PM

3. Because of this and many other flood geology issues that is inspired by creationist publishing's but left out certain details, I believe that "some" but not all of the flood geology is something I cannot buy into, ergo my question about Everest and other mountains and many ranges that have no fossils at all?



Maybe I'm missing something here...but when I search the internets to see if there are fossils on the top of Mt. Everest, I see that there have been fish, clam, and trilobite fossils found among other things.

I find it interesting that creationist condemn uniformitarian layered ideas yet they accept and employ layering in there discussions all the time, and sadly these supposed layers are not uniform through out the would, nor is the fossil record pretty and all layered according to animal species as employed by some gradualists.



Not all creationists believe that uniformitarian geology is all bad, however the ages that it took to form all those layers certainly is in question. We are now seeing that many different layers came about catastrophically. Not to say that all of these are flood layers, but they could have formed rapidly either before or after the flood.

I also think that Creationists are sadly lacking in accepting the truths and evidence all over the place about the conditions of the earth pre-flood?



That may be the case sometimes. I have read flood ideas on here and on other sites that attempt to describe pre-flood conditions.

There is huge contingent of evidences, yet this is never mentions, never discussed, etc.


I am sure you are thinking of specific websites or people. Unfortunately, without these specifics you sound like you are ranting against everyone, so your statements seem impossible. First, what evidences aren't discussed, who doesn't discuss them etc.

Now I interpret this “legalism” which often comes into play as some creationists deny that rain could have existed prior to the flood. Many other "biblical hermeneutics" of which I not only reject, I have been called a “scoffer” by some legalistic YECS whose values with respect to following Jesus have missed the point of their relationship with fellow Christians.I tell you that some of the creationist agenda I cannot accept, not because I don’t believe the bible, but when I have an argument that insists that I am no longer a Christian because my view has evidence that challenges their position, then something is wrong with this.



I understand. I don't agree with some hermenutics that other people cite. I have often seen people getting all riled up about their particular hermenutics. I think everyone should pursue humility a bit more, all of this pride of knowlege puffeth up. It is something I find to be a problem particularly within the creation science movement. We can stop pretending that we know everything. The problem is, people start thinking that if they don't have an answer ready at all times, then the evolutionists win. Well guess what? We are shooting at a moving target! We get new information all the time upon which to speculate, and I guarantee that not all of our past speculation is going to be correct. This is why I try to give even evolutionists the benefit of the doubt sometimes. I usually have bigger bones to pick with evolution than some of the side conversations that get started concerning evolution.

Jay I am not about supporting the "good old boys club" I want to know the truth, and there are apparent truths that can be extrapolated from Gods work in the world, and the intelligent design, employment of animal distributions, the fossil record, and DNA all are in my humble opinion a challenge to all of us as Creationists. Either we follow old books and publishing's that may no longer be relevant but are upheld as truth, that have an agenda especially some YEC agendas or we look at what's out there and what truths we can rubber stamp, evidence fact, truth! Is there anything wrong with saying I don’t know, or I am studying that???? I am most strongly a YEC and don‘t believe the need for long periods of time, but I also don’t imply I have all the answers either. I am ignorant and searching..... It is my most humble opinion that truth of GOD will employ with the Truth of HIS Word. I think the issue becomes the hermeneutics and mans interpretation of the scriptures.

So Jay humbly if you can give me a better explanation about the animal distribution, the Ark species ( I fully believe the bible and the Ark don’t get me wrong), and supposed rapid adaptive variation after the dispersion (sounds like micro-evolution which I reject), then I will fully consider the wwFlood. IF you can include the insects survival, and other such things, then I will consider the wwFlood. But while I don’t have a firm position it is my feeling a local flood indeed took place, and earth (eretz) and mankind were localized in early creation, and these areas were flooded but not all diversity, I also would challenge all of us to think about the Pangaea idea and the separation of land masses at Peleg. Do you know what kind of destruction this would have created to split continents thousands of miles apart at that time (Post flood)? It is my humble opinion this took place before the flood or during the flood, but also the possibility that the continents were created in the beginning pseudo “as is” 6,500 years ago???? I say this because the bio-sphere that GOD created and put all life into, the life itself required certain eco-niches in order to survive, I contend that God would have and did create such by creating a perfect “bed” to put the sheets on? There are mountain dwellers, ocean dwellers, deserts, wood lands, etc. etc. We know diversity is decreasing and not increasing? That pre-flood distribution was much more huge than it is now. There are just too many serious questions without answers, so I am not dogmatic, but there are things we all can rubber stamp....

Jay how can we dogmatically state that given the unanswered, that the little we do know is enough to say this is the answer, I am not talking about relativism, but facts Jay. I want to know the truth. That’s all.


Now while I answered those questions that I thought you had a misunderstanding about, I fully agree with you on this last bit. We need more humility, we need to keep searching for answers instead of drawing conclusions. I didn't believe pangea was an option (mostly due to Kent H*vind being my first exposure to YEC) and I believe it was Ikester who used it in his arguments here on the site. It blew my mind.

I used to like creationist sites that try to give all the answers, but now I see them differently. They have some good thoughts but they mix them with conclusions that don't make sense, straw men, red herring etc. They seem to be corrupted by the quest for money, people demanding solid answers, and weekly articles or videos. They push books, and sell DVD's to keep afloat. This isn't how creationism should be. I don't want a place who is just giving people what they want at any cost.

I think we are on the same page here, we just have different views on the creation overall, and that is a good thing. Iron sharpens iron. I only hope we can chip away at the size of these posts. Posted Image

#15 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 16 September 2012 - 11:28 PM

Listen realistically I can't imply as I believe some of my very, very good brothers really do have "it" creation down. So I do not at all support the floating log mats theory for several reasons I could enumerate on, but I will give this too you, insects would most likely be able to survive on such debris, but when you take in to account pre-flood diversity and its distribution based on the fossil record, how did huge portions of the existing diversity that we observe today get "back" to there original areas of distribution per GODs selective and most intrinsic and mighty wisdom of matching the fauna/flora with the eco-system HE originally created? It is these and many other questions I have that have put me in the position of being called a "scoffer" by Biblical literalists that can not allow for various possible views that may have a different narrative than theres but be Biblical in its approach. So as I think I mentioned before, I do lean towards a Local Flood how ever huge flood, and not a wwFLood. Which flies in the face of some or even many.


Ok so you agree with the possibility that a large variety of insects (and maybe some lizards too) could have floated on logs, whereas other types would have battled to survive. As for your objection about fauna/ flora remaining in the same areas I agree with you 100%. That is one of the many reasons I limit the flood to the so-called Permian geologic layers, rather then during the Carboniferous/Permian/Jurassic/Triassic period as per the widely accepted flood model. My flood model has a large range of pre-flood and post-flood fossilization. You will find that the Carboniferous fauna/flora is completely different to the Triassic/Jurassic. This shows a re-population of vacant areas indicating the flood. Then the post-flood transition from Triassic to Jurassic to Cretaceous to Cenozoic is more gradual, showing this uniformity that you are indicating. I just want to emphasize here that I don't believe in evolution, climate change can cause an entire change in fauna/flora in a specific era over a few years, I believe these major transitions occurred during the period 2300 BC until about 500BC.

I ask this question about Everest, because I think Psalms 104 is not a flood scenario but a creation narrative. I also am perplexed about the fossil record on Everest and other mountains and also the lack of no fossil record on many? Ergo my reason for asking the question. With respect to floating mats as an example---we have the Texas HOrned Lizard that has a fossil record that record is located in Texas and New Mexico, So this is a picture for me of the possible distribution of the THL prior to the flood, So these lizards are specialists and need ants for food, certain ants not just any ants, just like the Panda, or other animal species like frogs that procreate by laying their eggs in the waters of certain cupped plants in the Amazon. These specific special designs imply for me that unique pre-flood creations do to Gods handi-work, in no way have a current explanation that is reasonable or even fits with the evidences of post flood diversities actual distribution. So while I lean towards a young Earth, and think we need not have a God that took millions of years to create, I also am at a loss as either on either side are as to the "full" and sensible explanation. I do not support some of the views because they in my humble opinion are not possibly true even if they were written by experts. If it were true and fully explainable we'd have scientists and the full range of Christian thinking supporting these views......There are implications to some of the published information, and I don't believe in the long rin some of the accepted wwflood inferences will stand up to scrutiny and in fact especially where the fossil beds are currently used as examples by Henry Morris and others, the actual "evidence" flies again in the face of their published accounts. Unfortunately when you mention this stuff and try and point out the inconsistancies of this view, you get a rash of creationists that go after your biblical view and are really not interested in truth but supporting a good old boys club, of which I am none of that.


I agree all explanations have to make sense. I see you have scattered objections here, that with a little thinking can easily be explained. Some mountain ranges are new (volcanic) and would contain no fossils. Some come from areas where the topsoil has been washed away (newly formed continents a few hundred years before the flood) and would contain no fossils. Most mountain ranges are from previous oceans that were originally anoxic (contain a lower layer of trilobite fossils and maybe some later fossils above).

Regarding symbiotic relationships, I believe some develop afresh. Certain organisms get used to a new way of feeding or new behavior patterns and then stick with it. Others carried on after the flood, managing to re-establish the relationship after the ark. Those that couldn't re-establish symbiotic relationships that required them, simply died off. There were many many extinctions at the P-T boundary.

Referring to your lizard example (I assume those lizards are only found in post-Permian geologic layers) the relative consistency of fauna since the Triassic is explained by my flood model. I believe the Triassic is the immediate post-flood world.
  • JayShel likes this

#16 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 September 2012 - 07:21 AM

To Jay:
You said: Maybe I'm missing something here...but when I search the internets to see if there are fossils on the top of Mt. Everest, I see that there have been fish, clam, and trilobite fossils found among other things.
Jay maybe you misread me, I "am" asking the question because i realize these fossils do exist and I am curious as to how Creationists view these fossils or what they actually say to us????

Jay and New Path:
In the future I wil be more specific and not post such large pieces. I am used of this due ot other forums I have been on.

Jay:
I am not ranting about creationists what ever their ilk, But Iam sharing facts. I am questioning some accepted ideas that some creationists rubber stamp that I believe fall short and are possibly in error. So if it sounds like a rant I do apologize, but I also think that we all need to Discuss the issues as we are very well, and not become "political" in our approach to fellow Christians especially within the confines of an in-house discussion. Let our na be na and yea be yea..... I love the scripture about sharpening iron...very good!!!!!

New Path:
After studying fossils for some time, some creationists say this fossilization could "only" happen during the flood? I inferred the Karoo Fossil beds as na example that has been used by some but important information is left out. THe Karoo fossil beds show a cyclical happening, There are areas of the fossil bed that have no other animal species but one, THe mixing of the fossils runs counter to Creationist flood geology. There area host of issues with this, but people keep pumping out information that is old and entrenched in creationist examples.... I am still studying this, but I am sure that some of these sites are not exactly representative as they are put across--thats all.

Examples--Mt. Saint Helens fossils formed in two weeks. Heat water and layering whalla! It should be noted the Karoo and the Canadian fossil beds were by huge bodies of water, A hit from a meteor or other cyclonic storm could have also caused flooding on a huge scale. Many creationists would not accept this inference at all based on a "good creation" and that no disasters existed pre-flood, but there is a host of evidences of such?

Jay and New Path:
I referenced the "possibility" based on scripture given the creation narrative that the land under the waters may have already been existed, obviously the narrative says land came up or water (s). Any play in your mind going outside of what you currently accept that the psudo-continents existed when land was made in the beginning, I base that on the fact the created biosphere required such habitat and eco-niches for animal diversity and existance? Flat land mass is not enough, hills aren't enough.

Lastly what ever your view---there seems tobe a view that says that the continents that we see today came "after" the flood? I don't know if that is what you all believe, but I only ask the question--how do you get around the cataclysm caused by such a break-up of land, even to the point that land masses had to have "slid" thousands of miles apart? even over time this initial separation would ahve been huge a cataclysmic?

#17 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 18 September 2012 - 12:17 AM

New Path:
After studying fossils for some time, some creationists say this fossilization could "only" happen during the flood? I inferred the Karoo Fossil beds as na example that has been used by some but important information is left out. THe Karoo fossil beds show a cyclical happening, There are areas of the fossil bed that have no other animal species but one, THe mixing of the fossils runs counter to Creationist flood geology. There area host of issues with this, but people keep pumping out information that is old and entrenched in creationist examples.... I am still studying this, but I am sure that some of these sites are not exactly representative as they are put across--thats all.

Examples--Mt. Saint Helens fossils formed in two weeks. Heat water and layering whalla! It should be noted the Karoo and the Canadian fossil beds were by huge bodies of water, A hit from a meteor or other cyclonic storm could have also caused flooding on a huge scale. Many creationists would not accept this inference at all based on a "good creation" and that no disasters existed pre-flood, but there is a host of evidences of such?


Yes, like I said , I do agree with you that the widely accepted flood model is not satisfactory. That's why I place the flood at the Permian geologic layers only.

Before the flood there were huge marine transgressions, and I believe a huge meteor impact event a few hundred years after the flood.

Jay and New Path:
I referenced the "possibility" based on scripture given the creation narrative that the land under the waters may have already been existed, obviously the narrative says land came up or water (s). Any play in your mind going outside of what you currently accept that the psudo-continents existed when land was made in the beginning, I base that on the fact the created biosphere required such habitat and eco-niches for animal diversity and existance? Flat land mass is not enough, hills aren't enough.


To me its just ocean floors. Obviously this is land under the waters.

Lastly what ever your view---there seems tobe a view that says that the continents that we see today came "after" the flood? I don't know if that is what you all believe, but I only ask the question--how do you get around the cataclysm caused by such a break-up of land, even to the point that land masses had to have "slid" thousands of miles apart? even over time this initial separation would ahve been huge a cataclysmic?


I personally believe, judging by fossil distribution, that the split creating the North Atlantic was during the flood. The split creating the South Atlantic was after the flood, showing post Permian fauna fossils evenly distributed across both Africa and South America.

During the Japan earthquake the ocean floor moved 50m! These two plates brushed past eachother in a few hours with virtually zero heat effects. They always exaggerate the effects, I believe the end-Permian volcanic activity of the Siberian traps caused the flood, and did increase the temperature of the entire earth making survival very difficult, but not quite as bad as modern scientists would predict. Then a few hundred years later there were further continental splits, but the earth's population was living in the Egypt/Euphrates area, concentrated in Sumeria, and would have survived the after-effect from the earthquakes and tsunamis splitting Australia and South America and Africa.

#18 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:08 AM

Dear New Path--again you have some very interesting points, but I would also point out that distribution of animal species pre-flood was huge, and many animals found in other continents were found in ours as well and I want to agree with your view, but I also would ask you to consider that when God originally set the animal fauna in situ, that the distribution and possible eco-niches were larger and more spread out through the whole world, is, say Bison, Elephants, Mastodons, Mammoths saber tooth's, and many others. So I do see that distribution may be tied to GOds original infusion of the biosphere? So wether or not the continents split, I believe there is a good case for animal distribution not being tied to the splitting of the continents, but God's original creation genius--but I am also open on this subject.

Also I would like to infer the possibility of a huge meteor hitting the northern Canadian area, and the resultant Tsunami washed great Beat Lake wich was located right down through the center of Canada and the river (don't remember its name) but the area between these two bodies of water fresh and salt water the was a huge partial of grass land and forested areas, interestingly the fossil bed with marine and fresh water fossils and dinosaurs are located in an area that would or could have been resultant of this disaster.

So while my good brothers in Christ push for the wwFlood, I see this fossil mass especially given this location actual makeup of the bed itself as a response or result of a Cataclysm which caused this. Now this "cataclysm", pre-flood is one of many evidences I believe point out that the current status of pre-flood discussions especially amongst YEC groups is unacceptable because of their hermeneutics and therefore flies on the face of a "good" creation. I have been hammered by some YECs about pre-flood ideas, but there is so much information, history, and even in the fossil record itself that speak to pre-flood conditions, I don't see how one can deny it, unless one is dogmatic about their hermenuetics and anything outside that is unacceptable. I believe that what ever the earth was like pre-flood, it certainly will harmonize with the bible, I think mans interpretations fall short sometimes, it is my ardent hope that all creationists would look closer to the evidences that exist and also look at some of the published information that is being taught as factual when some of the studies leave out certain information and observations......

#19 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 46
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 19 September 2012 - 08:27 AM

Dear New Path--again you have some very interesting points, but I would also point out that distribution of animal species pre-flood was huge, and many animals found in other continents were found in ours as well and I want to agree with your view, but I also would ask you to consider that when God originally set the animal fauna in situ, that the distribution and possible eco-niches were larger and more spread out through the whole world, is, say Bison, Elephants, Mastodons, Mammoths saber tooth's, and many others. So I do see that distribution may be tied to GOds original infusion of the biosphere? So wether or not the continents split, I believe there is a good case for animal distribution not being tied to the splitting of the continents, but God's original creation genius--but I am also open on this subject.

Also I would like to infer the possibility of a huge meteor hitting the northern Canadian area, and the resultant Tsunami washed great Beat Lake wich was located right down through the center of Canada and the river (don't remember its name) but the area between these two bodies of water fresh and salt water the was a huge partial of grass land and forested areas, interestingly the fossil bed with marine and fresh water fossils and dinosaurs are located in an area that would or could have been resultant of this disaster.

So while my good brothers in Christ push for the wwFlood, I see this fossil mass especially given this location actual makeup of the bed itself as a response or result of a Cataclysm which caused this. Now this "cataclysm", pre-flood is one of many evidences I believe point out that the current status of pre-flood discussions especially amongst YEC groups is unacceptable because of their hermeneutics and therefore flies on the face of a "good" creation. I have been hammered by some YECs about pre-flood ideas, but there is so much information, history, and even in the fossil record itself that speak to pre-flood conditions, I don't see how one can deny it, unless one is dogmatic about their hermenuetics and anything outside that is unacceptable. I believe that what ever the earth was like pre-flood, it certainly will harmonize with the bible, I think mans interpretations fall short sometimes, it is my ardent hope that all creationists would look closer to the evidences that exist and also look at some of the published information that is being taught as factual when some of the studies leave out certain information and observations......


Exactly! for example, if you study the chemical make-up of isotopes of the fossils, you can gather that deep/lower fossils had an entirely different atmosphere. More co2. more oxygen, less carbon 12 (ie less methane). Temperatures were lower in those deeper layers. There are geologic signs of mass glaciation in the lower/middle geologic layers. Also masses of air formed basalt in the middle of the geologic layers. The current flood model fails to explain all of these changes in their flood layers.

I have however showed you an alternative flood model that is consistent with the facts, instead of looking into my alternative suggestions you seem stuck on your local flood model. The wording of the bible certainly sounds like a worldwide flood even if you can find some loopholes in the wording. I have tried to take both scientific facts and the bible very seriously and believe a flood at the P-T boundary is more consistent with both the bible and scientific fact than currently accepted models of both evolutionists and YEC's.
  • JayShel likes this

#20 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 20 September 2012 - 06:15 AM

I agree that I am much more into the local flood. I don't mean to be disrespectful of your view but only ask questions in areas that I have questions myself about. So yes your right, and as I said I think you have some very interesting views!!! I just am not looking to go into some out and out challenging of each others positions, I could forward several things for you to read that are detailed and very much are excellent reasons for a local flood, but alas this is not a power struggle with me, it sis an exchange of ideas and none of these questions are meant to challenge anyone. So we both have views and I am fine with that!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users